mm_generate_video

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that the operation is asynchronous, returns a task ID, takes several minutes, and requires polling via mm_query_video_task. This provides rich behavioral context that annotations alone do not cover.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with a one-line summary, a clear Args list, and a Returns note. Every element earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 5 parameters, async behavior, and a follow-up workflow, the description covers inputs, return value, and next steps. It even specifies the likely return type (task ID) and generation time, making it a complete standalone reference.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), but the description's Args section gives detailed semantics for all 5 parameters, including constraints (prompt max 512 chars, duration choices 5/10, allowed resolutions, fps choices 30/60, with_audio default false). This fully compensates for the schema gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it submits an asynchronous video generation task and returns a task ID for polling with mm_query_video_task. It uses a specific verb ('提交' / submit) and resource (video generation), and distinguishes from sibling tools that handle other media or query tasks.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly explains the asynchronous workflow and directs the user to mm_query_video_task for querying results, giving clear follow-up guidance. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative generation tools like mm_generate_image, so the when-not-to-use aspect is implied rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.